Study Groups?

In the classic, "One L," (1977) author Scott Turow wrote, "Study groups are another of the basics of the first-year life. A small number of students, usually between four and eight, meet regularly to discuss common difficulties which have arisen with course work. There is no set regime for study group operation. Some groups merely hash over random questions; others use their time together to work out formal exercises; some spend the year developing long course outlines which are exchanged among group members before exams. Most of the faculty encourage the formation of study groups. They afford each student an opportunity for extensive talk about legal problems, something rarely possible in class. And aside from their educational value, study groups have a kind of therapeutic function, offering a much valued element of stability amid the uncertainties of first-year life. The other members of your study group are the people to whom you can always go with questions, the only students in the school whom you know have committed themselves to your support."

What has changed since 1977? Is Turow’s report still valid?

Professor Dorothy H. Everson (Penn State University) carried out an exhaustive and empirical study of law school study groups. Before organizing a study group, you might want to read "To Group or Not to Group: Students' Perceptions of Collaborative Learning Activities in Law School," a 2004 article that has been used as the foundation for significant later studies. (Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 28, 343-421)

Here's a short excerpt from Professor Everson's work (pages 395 et seq.), to give you an idea of how this study may help you when it comes to making that big decision.

Part of having the “right stuff” was having the “right number” of members. Formal groups ranged from two to five members. Some groups of three or four “core” members, allowed others to attend meetings. In some cases, they reported not minding if “visitors” or “occasionals” had not done the preparatory work as long as these people realized that they could not enter into the discussion. In most formal groups, however, preparation and participation were required of attendees. A male student at a local-draw school mentioned his group’s mechanism for dealing with non-contributing drop-ins:

We don’t ask them to leave, but we kind of say that we will break for lunch now and meet later. And we know that we are not going to meet in the same place and just go somewhere else.

Some groups adhered to a “no new members” policy, but were willing to make exceptions if it served the collective group interest. A male student at a national-draw school related the story of a woman who had asked to join his group for a very specific purpose:

She approached us with an offer to bring extra. She had been studying a certain area really rigorously because she felt like she didn’t know it very well. She also struck every single one of us as one of the brightest people in our entire class. So we felt that there was something to be gained for us by having her as part of it that would more than offset the disadvantage of having someone who hadn’t worked with us all the way through. And so she joined for just the sessions in which we worked on that area.

One member of an all-male, self-identified “hot group” at a local-draw school told of people calling him up two or three days before the exam asking to participate in group sessions. He reported telling them, “Get out of here. Forget it. We worked too hard on this.”

A female student ... told of being allowed into a “hot group” until it came time for them to work on their “attack outline,” a condensed version of the various outlines they had composed together. She related:

I sat in the computer lab for three days straight by myself and I formed my own attack outline from the outline I had. And I remember that it was my worst grade because I didn’t have anybody to reassure me that what I was putting down was right.

Another requirement of the more highly functional groups was having the “right people.” As mentioned earlier, most students were not sure how ideal working relationships occurred and attributed their successful unions to chance or luck. There was talk of being with “like-minded” people, “kindred spirits,” “not panicky,” “intellectually and socially compatible” classmates.

However, the one factor that was most often identified as a benefit was “diversity.” Diversity related to factors such as gender, race, political orientation, age, ways of processing information, specific cognitive strengths, professional background, and temperament.

___________

There’s more out there – on the information superhighway – to help you in your decisions related to study groups. Let me know if I can help!